Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Trump May Create a Welfare Wall

I am highly suspicious of Donald Trump. I believe he would love to deport most recent immigrants, regardless of whether they have jobs here or in some other way are supporting themselves in the private sector without any drain on the state.

That said, it appears that Trump may implement a welfare wall. Something I have called for often here at EPJ.

The Washington Post obtained two draft executive orders the Trump administration is reportedly considering, both of which (in title and content) resemble documents Vox wrote about and published last week...

The draft dealing with legal immigrants’ use of social services could have further-reaching implications for legal immigrants currently in the US than anything the president’s already signed...

Legal immigrants currently get access to some public benefits in some circumstances. But the federal government — already, under existing law — can bar someone from coming to the US, or from becoming a permanent resident, if there’s any evidence he or she will become a “public charge.”

Currently, the federal government looks at use of cash benefits (like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) when it’s making “public charge” decisions, but not in-kind benefits like Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

This executive action, though — according to the draft obtained by Vox, which seems consistent with the Post’s reporting — would ask the Department of Homeland Security to issue a rule saying that an immigrant can’t be admitted to the US if he’s likely to get any benefit “determined in any way on the basis of income, resources, or financial need.”...

People who use any of those benefits and are in the US on visas would be subject to deportation. And the order would even require the person who sponsored an immigrant into the US to reimburse the federal government for any benefits the immigrant used...

Whether or not this particular executive order is signed, “walling off the welfare state” from immigrants in the US may well remain in the White House’s sights.

I would support Trump on such an order though I repeat, I am suspicious of his attitude toward immigrants in general. A welfare wall, yes, but only a welfare wall.

While I do generally enjoy the hell out of both of your blogs, even when I disagree, it seems lately that you are following the MSM trend of knee-jerk reactions to everything. Now that Trump is doing basically exactly what you have suggested, you have to be suspicious of his "attitude." You should give credit where it is due, like I'm about to do.At least the title of the thread wasn't "OMG: Trump follows EPJ Advice!"

The point was not to exclude immigrants from receiving welfare or benefits by threatening them. The point is to end the entitlement state.

Besides the issue that 'immigrants' receive benefits is a red herring. Permanent residents are eligible for benefits after 5 years of proven residency. Non-resident aliens with a work visa are not eligible. So-called 'illegal' immigrants are not eligible at all. In essence, El Señor Presidente Bananero Trumpo wants to keep the entitlement state, just not for icky foreigners.

Sounds like a great move! We should deport as many as possible. I know some 'Muricans that paid their taxes and such over the years, but can't get help because they are old white males and don't have a brood of bastards.

So maybe RW and others could tell me more about their insatiable appetite for Somali immigration for example and why they are not moving to a Somali neighborhood?

And what about the coercive people herders, like you Evan? "Mah cosmotarian utopian society"!

In a PPS, no one has the right to force themselves on the property of another. It is the opposite of the goodwill and charity that a healthy Christian society would otherwise show; it turns it into a right and entitlement, which it most assuredly is not.

As to the status of public property, I trust you are fully informed as to the papers by Hoppe, Block, et al, and have a coherently defensible position?

How am I a "coercive people herder" when I'm advocating for individual self-determination and against state-mandated segregation? That's a pretty Orwellian charge to make.

And yes, I'm familiar with the Hoppe/Block debate. Hoppe's public library analogy is nothing but question-begging IMO. And I agree with Block that immigrants have a relatively stronger claim to public land than does the government.